January 26, 2019

"Mrs Trump’s father was not a fearsome presence and did not control the family. Mrs Trump did not leave her Design and Architecture course at University relating to the completion of an exam..."

"... as alleged in the article, but rather because she wanted to pursue a successful career as a professional model. Mrs Trump was not struggling in her modelling career before she met Mr Trump, and she did not advance in her career due to the assistance of Mr Trump. We accept that Mrs Trump was a successful professional model in her own right before she met her husband and obtained her own modelling work without his assistance. Mrs Trump met Mr Trump in 1998, not in 1996 as stated in the article. The article also wrongly claimed that Mrs Trump’s mother, father and sister relocated to New York in 2005 to live in buildings owned by Mr Trump. They did not. The claim that Mrs Trump cried on election night is also false."

From the apology by The UK Telegraph.

88 comments:

Florence said...

This was the best part: “ As a mark of our regret we have agreed to pay Mrs Trump substantial damages as well as her legal costs.”

Meade said...

cal·um·nyDictionary result for calumny
/ˈkaləmnē/Submit
noun
the making of false and defamatory statements about someone in order to damage their reputation; slander.
"a bitter struggle marked by calumny and litigation"
synonyms: slander, defamation (of character), character assassination, misrepresentation of character, evil-speaking, calumniation, libel; More
a false and slanderous statement.
"a change in the law would prevent the press from publishing calumnies"

There are former commenters (some who have returned) who would be well-advised to look in the mirror while thinking about that word.

Paco Wové said...

Q: What do you call 1000 journalists losing their jobs?

A: A good start.

Amadeus 48 said...

And the Telegraph is the Conservative newspaper.

Like the NYT, all the news that fits we fake.

AllenS said...

Wow, that was a big meal of crow.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Again - if you're a loyal leftist, you can lie all you want. Because Cult of Trump hate.

Surprised to see an apology.

rhhardin said...

The UK doesn't allow truth as a defense, so they needn't apologize for being wrong.

Big Mike said...

pay Mrs Trump substantial damages as well as her legal costs.

And I don’t imagine she picked a cheap legal firm. But was the litigation in the U.K. or was it in the land where Sullivan prevails?

Original Mike said...

Is there anything they published that was true?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Wow, that was a big meal of crow.

Yes. Except for Mrs. Trump's name Melania being correct, 95% of what they printed was lies, smears, and libelous.

Of course, now they apologize, but the lies are still out there. That is their modus opereni. Lie. Create the meme. (quietly apologize) Let the lies live on!!!

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Wow. May e we should make our libel laws more like the U.K. Now THAT is an apology / correction!

Ann Althouse said...

"The UK doesn't allow truth as a defense, so they needn't apologize for being wrong."

The libel is committed everywhere they send the newspaper. I'm not seeing if there was a lawsuit filed against the Telegraph or if the whole thing was settled before filing, but last year, Melania sued The Daily Mail for defamation, and she chose to file in NY state court. If you want to discuss venue, personal jurisdiction, and choice of law, I can do that.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

At least they spelled her name correctly, even if they did wiff on all the facts of her very public life.

AustinRoth said...

Short version - “We are sorry our completely false article cost us money. However, there is no need to worry that any staff member will be held accountable.”

gilbar said...

as they say on The Best of the Web
but other than that; the story was accurate

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

From article to retraction, apology, plus paying lawyer fees was one week.

I don't think that would be possible under the US libel laws.

Why can't we be more like Europe!

gilbar said...

Meade showed us a new synonym for "Smear"
calumny
/ˈkaləmnē/Submit
noun
the making of false and defamatory statements about someone in order to damage their reputation; slander.

Thanx Meade!
and thanx for all the ratz!!

Jason said...

I haven't seen an apology like that since Kevin Kline had John Cleese hanging upside down from an upper-story window.

Hari said...

It looks like this (the article and the applogy)all happened in one week.

Sebastian said...

"Is there anything they published that was true?"

In the era of Fake News, it would be convenient to the public if every other week or so we'd get the short list of stories that actually panned out.

robother said...

The upside of reversing Time v. Sullivan: a lot more of these kind of abject public apologies in US papers. And, in the long run, less fake news.

Wince said...

"Other than that, Mrs. Trump, how did you like the article?"

Meade said...

AllenS, Dust Bunny Queen: Are you aware that all of your comments (and others') at Trooper Yorks blog from 5 or so years ago are no longer being kept private? Apparently, the settings have been changed to "Public" and are open now for anyone to read. Many of those comments could easily be judged to be libelous.

Narayanan said...

I'm reading that Sullivan- NY times was about an ad published in NYT and not anything the newspaper wrote!?

So was the case filed and argued correctly?

Professora's offer to explain called.

AllenS said...

So, sue me.

AllenS said...

The First Amendment disappeared so fast, that I never even knew it!

Ann Althouse said...

NYT v. Sullivan applies in all the American courts, state and federal, so that's part of the law that you can't avoid by forum-shopping within the United States. And clearly, Melania Trump is a public figure, so that means, under NYT v. Sullivan, that she'd have to prove that the defamatory statements were false and also that the defendant either knew they were false or published with a reckless disregard for the truth.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

AllenS, Dust Bunny Queen: Are you aware that all of your comments (and others') at Trooper Yorks blog

Anyone want to explain the drama? I was here 5 years ago and I don't remember any.

Meade said...

AllenS said...
"So, sue me."

I get it — you consider yourself "judgement proof."

But I'm not suggesting litigation. I'm suggesting you (and others) pause and reflect on your own moral values. That's all.

Amadeus 48 said...

I haven’t looked at Sullivan since law school, but as I recall Sullivan was a counterpunch to a tactic being used in some deep Southern states to attck and bankrupt some civil rights organizations. Suits would be brought in MS or AL for libel and local juries woud bring in big judgments against organizations engaging in advocacy through advertising and publication. Well may you ask would it be possible Ross Barnett or Bull Connor by saying that they mistreated black citizens? Before Sullivan, that could have been a question for a Mississippi jury to decide.

Ann Althouse said...

Melania Trump is proving that public figures are not helpless to sue when there is defamation. The First Amendment lets people get off the hook when they get something wrong, which obviously they do all the time. But if the newspaper just made something up, with no factual basis, and without doing things it could do to check, then it's "actual malice" — or to put it in unconfusing English — a reckless disregard for the truth.

The First Amendment doesn't protect you from a defamation lawsuit where you've just lied or made up things about a public figure.

I like NYT v. Sullivan. I think it's good to give speech this room to breathe and not to make it too risky to speak, but the deliberate destruction of a person's reputation is still something the law can provide a remedy for.

Amadeus 48 said...

I am pretty sure this case was being handled under UK libel law, which is much less constrained than US law. UK publications are constantly publishing retractions and paying damages. The humor (or humour) magazine Private Eye waged a titanic battle with Sir James Goldsmith 40 years ago.

Wince said...

Narayanan Subramanian said...
I'm reading that Sullivan- NY times was about an ad published in NYT and not anything the newspaper wrote!?

In defamation law, "public figure" standard applies to all persons who communicate otherwise defamatory material about a public figure. The "public figure" privilege is NOT the exclusive domain of the establishment "press", which was the especially pernicious aspect of McCain-Feingold law in the Citizens United decision.

McCain-Feingold had a clause "that exempt[ed] journalists — or at least those working for traditional media organizations — from criminal penalties that apply to other speakers...

The statute contains a news media exception for speech that “[a]ppears in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of [a] broadcast, cable, or satellite television or radio station.”

Citizens United has criticized the FEC’s emphasis on whether the speech comes from a television network or other member of the institutional media.

“It’s hard to know where the FEC draws the line between protected ‘news commentary’ and unprotected political speech,” said Matthew D. McGill of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, an attorney representing Citizens United.

“The notion that when Chris Matthews or Bill O’Reilly criticizes a presidential candidate, it’s protected ‘news commentary,’ but when Citizens United does so, it’s a felony, seems to us completely incompatible with the First Amendment,” he added.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

ot:
The Level of Violent Imagery Directed Against Covington High Boys Is Dangerous and Wrong

Ann Althouse said...

"But I'm not suggesting litigation. I'm suggesting you (and others) pause and reflect on your own moral values. That's all."

Yes, sometimes it works to simply confront a person with their shameful behavior. Ironically, this is about the reputation of the person who is trying to hurt another person's reputation. He is actually hurting his own reputation. Some people do care about their own morality, and they don't simply say it doesn't matter because you won't or can't sue me. In fact, to say it doesn't matter is to further degrade your own reputation.

As Mark wrote in the comments to yesterday's post about the principle of charity, the Catechism of the Catholic Church provides:

2477. Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:
- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor . . .

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

"Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved." (quoting St. Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, 22).


I'm not even Catholic, but just reading that, I feel that, yes, that is the standard I would hold myself to, and if I were confronted with a failure to meet that standard, I would make amends.

Ann Althouse said...

"I am pretty sure this case was being handled under UK libel law..."

Pretty sure based on what?

I tried to see where the lawsuit, if any, was filed.

The plaintiff can forum shop, and if the UK is a better forum, why did Melania choose NY state court when she sued The Daily Mail?

Amadeus 48 said...

A-HA! The Telegraph made the mistake of relying on Nina “Blow Job” Burleigh’s journalism. That explains a lot.

Fritz said...

More journalists who need to learn to code.

Joel Winter said...

So... what's going to happen to Nina Burleigh, the author of the article? Where is her public mea culpa, etc? What price does she have to pay? (Or did the Telegraph just take her article and add all of the falsehoods, unilaterally?)

Amadeus 48 said...

Maybe Melania (and her husband) wanted to test US libel law against the Daily Mail. It is an oddity that the Daily Mail’s online operation is in New York City, but it is. The Toriegraph is a UK operation all the way, although they have US offices. Nina Burleigh’s piece was in the weekend magazine, which is not widely published in the US. I can’t think where I’d get a copy of it and I live in Chicago.
Also, it appears that there was no case filed. In the UK you hire a libel lawyer and he or she contacts the publication, outlining the libels. If the publisher sees a problem, it publishes a correction, apologizes, and pays the plaintiffs costs and an agreed amont for damages. This is what happened here, and it happened pronto.
Who wants to go public defending Nina’s story augmentation?

DKWalser said...

The case may have been filled in NY State court, but it appears it was settled according to UK custom. It appears the paper quickly settled the case, agreeing to pay damages, attorney fees, and to issue a correction. That’s NOT typical in the US. It is in the UK.

Yancey Ward said...

Shorter Telegraph:

"Every word in our article about Mrs. Trump was untrue, including 'the' and 'a'."

Robert Cook said...

I guess someone put pressure on the Telegraph to provide a revisionist history. Sounds like too many errors for them all to have been errors.

"Like the NYT, all the news that fits we fake."

Or, maybe the retraction is fake.

Robert Cook said...

"Q: What do you call 1000 journalists losing their jobs?

A: A good start."


Completely stupid.

Yancey Ward said...

I agree that is stupid- much better is- "What do you have if you have a 1000 NYTimes journalists up to their necks in shit?"

Amadeus 48 said...

Robert Cook—what are you talking about? I don’t understand anything you said in your 11:08 post. “Too many errors”??? We’re talking Nina Burleigh here. Her feelings don’t care about your facts.

Yancey Ward said...

Robert wrote:

"Sounds like too many errors for them all to have been errors."

I actually agree, calling them errors implies they were accidental.

Annie C. said...

I will never, ever be able to comprehend the amount of hatred that Trump has brought out in so many people.

Did they always hate this much and Trump just brought it to the surface? Have I always been a deplorable to those who think they are better than me?

It makes absolutely no sense to me that fellow Americans could feel that way about simple differences of opinion or style. Melania is a lovely woman as far as I can tell and a beautiful first lady. They hate her because she married Trump, yet before he ran for office, they adored her.

I am not a racist. I don't hate gays, or blacks, or Mexicans, or any one else for that matter. I do have phobias, but I reserve them for actual dangers like terrorists and high bridges I have to drive over.

I don't get it.

readering said...

Article appears to be extract from book published in October on women in Trump's life.


I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

I agree with your comments and attitude about charity Althouse but your splooge stooge extravaganza from several years ago was pretty mean spirited.

gilbar said...

Annie C QUestioned...
I will never, ever be able to comprehend the amount of hatred that Trump has brought out in so many people.

Did they always hate this much and Trump just brought it to the surface?
Yes!
Have I always been a deplorable to those who think they are better than me?
Yes!

Leland said...

Did they say weather the sky was clear and blue? Anything about the sun coming around tomorrow?

narciso said...


Yes a story that ties wife's wife and a rancid hooker, I guess the last was burleighs aspiration


https://www.google.com/amp/s/thebulwark.com/what-the-stone-indictment-says-about-muellers-investigation/amp/

Marc said...

Perhaps Nina Burleigh can go on Bill Maher's show and discuss her methods of practicing journalism.

Jeff said...

Annie, you're white. That alone makes you a target. What used to be called reverse racism is now openly espoused on the Left.

Since the 1960's, we have elevated victimhood from a misfortune to a virtue. And since the 1970's, at least, we have praised the claim of supposed racism to excuse every sort bad behavior by racial minorities.

You say you don't get it, but how could it not end up like this?

Paco Wové said...

"Completely stupid."

I will cherish that comment (given the source).

rcocean said...

But other than that, it was pretty damn accurate.

LOL!

rcocean said...

This is the reason I trust NOTHING about Trump in the MSM until I double check i personally

If the story is based on Anonymous sources and its anti-Trump I ignore it. If its based on one sentence or a paraphrase or whatever, I find out the vidoe/audio and listen to it MYSELF in context.

The MSM cannot be trusted.

rcocean said...

Sadly, this shit works with the dummies and low-information voters. If Trump was getting even 30% positive coverage his approval rating would be 10 points higher.

rcocean said...

"I will never, ever be able to comprehend the amount of hatred that Trump has brought out in so many people."

Its not really Trump - its the people who support Trump. That's who they hate. They thought we were defeated, and they'd won -forever. And then came Trump....

Ann Althouse said...

"It is an oddity that the Daily Mail’s online operation is in New York City, but it is. The Toriegraph is a UK operation all the way, although they have US offices. "

But you don't need to sue an organization in its principal place of business. You can sue where your reputation is located and where the tort was committed.

Ann Althouse said...

"The case may have been filled in NY State court, but it appears it was settled according to UK custom."

Not sure what that refers to. Obviously, many U.S. cases are settled.

tim maguire said...

While I don’t want to see NY Times v. Sullivan overturned, I would like to see it tweaked a bit. The reckless disregard standard should reference journalistic best practices such that any substantial deviation without good cause could sustain that element. The simpler “knew or should have known” standard seems far more appropriate to me. I would also like to see either the law or journalistic standards address the asymmetry between the prominance of the mistake and that of the correction.

Now I need to remember which bloggers belittled Melania for suing. I have some neener neeners to deliver.

Sebastian said...

"Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it.“

Like, "A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian"?

Like, "We condemn the actions of the Covington Catholic High School students towards Nathan Phillips specifically, and Native Americans in general, Jan. 18, after the March for Life, in Washington, D.C. We extend our deepest apologies to Mr. Phillips. This behavior is opposed to the Church’s teachings on the dignity and respect of the human person"?

No doubt, some Catholics are sincere. But when progs are in charge, as they are in much or the Catholic Church, charity becomes a tool, to be applied selectively. But selective charity is no charity at all: just prog politics by other means.

AllenS said...

Meade, if you don't like my moral values, I have others.

Ann Althouse said...

"I agree with your comments and attitude about charity Althouse but your splooge stooge extravaganza from several years ago was pretty mean spirited."

If you agree with the principle of charity, then you need to go back to my actual statements and understand them in "the most rational way possible and... considering its best, strongest possible interpretation."

I will invite you to follow the principle you say you agree with, find the statements of mine that you remember as "mean spirited" and examine them for the most rational interpretation — the best and strongest interpretation.

At the very least, if you are not willing to spend the time, you should withdraw your statement and apologize.

William said...

I have never seen a picture of Melania wearing a MAGA hat. As we all know, the ordinary rules of libel or even common decency are suspended when one wears a MAGA hat.

Howard said...

Blogger Meade said...

AllenS, Dust Bunny Queen: Are you aware that all of your comments (and others') at Trooper Yorks blog from 5 or so years ago are no longer being kept private? Apparently, the settings have been changed to "Public" and are open now for anyone to read. Many of those comments could easily be judged to be libelous.


This hall way monitor shit is toxic femininity. You wouldn't have the balls to say this to Allen's face, so just cram it, clowny.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

"We regret not being educated enough to pursue any real profession, and having to make our living as journos. We apologize for any misunderstanding that may have resulted."

Paco Wové said...

In other happy journalism news, the "Newseum" is closing down.

Static Ping said...

Robert Cook, I agree with you that it is wrong to celebrate persons losing their jobs, even if they are people I do not like.

That said, incompetent people losing their jobs is for the best and, in most cases, for the best for the person being fired. Unfortunately, journalism these days seems to think that qualifications involve having correct political views and the ability to keep to a narrative, facts be damned. So what we have here are "qualified" people in a corrupt industry losing their jobs. It's both unfortunate and well deserved.

I really wish we had a healthy, robust journalism industry that truly cared about being impartial news reporters, but, alas, that is not the case. And people generally do not like paying for garbage.

Leland said...

They should have learned to code.

Paco Wové said...

I don't think journalists are incompetent. I think they are malignant. If they are incompetent, it is only in the sense that they are incompetent propagandists, amateurishly peddling lies.

Temujin said...

Journalism.

Rusty said...

"This hall way monitor shit is toxic femininity. You wouldn't have the balls to say this to Allen's face, so just cram it, clowny."

OOoooo. Howard tries on a pair of big boy pants. Knowing full well he also will never have to meet anyone frace to face.

Amadeus 48 said...

Ann—The Sunday Telegraph Magazine is not widely published in the US, but it is in Britain. More damage there. British courts are open to claims by public persons US courts are hostile to them. What would you do?

FullMoon said...

Anticipating same sort of apology to Trump and myself from Chuck, Inga and Ritmo/PP/toothless.

Fen said...

"There are former commenters (some who have returned) who would be well-advised to look in the mirror while thinking about that word."

Find a mittor.

You of all people shouldn't lecture about slander?

What, you going to front page me as a "homophobe" again because I expressed boredom witn 4 posts on gay issues in one day? And she didn't even have tbe class to apologize for it later. Nasty woman.

Go fuck yourself, Low T



Fen said...

Althouse: "Yes, sometimes it works to simply confront a person with their shameful behavior. "

And sometimes they have no shame, right Ann?

Meade said...

I’m sorry I don’t know what a mittor is.

Jim at said...

I will never, ever be able to comprehend the amount of hatred that Trump has brought out in so many people.

It's not just Trump. He's simply the focal point.
They hate you, too.

Ann Althouse said...

“Ann—The Sunday Telegraph Magazine is not widely published in the US, but it is in Britain. More damage there. British courts are open to claims by public persons US courts are hostile to them. What would you do?”

Research the specifics but the general rule is that once you can bring a libel suit for defamation in one state, you can and must sue for all your damages everywhere. Again, the suit against the Daily Mail was filed in NY, and that reflects an analysis of all the factors.

Gahrie said...

Why is CBF worthy of charity, but not Kavanaugh? Why is Phillips worth charity, but not Sandmann?

Howard said...

Sorry Rusty, that toxic fem remark hit you too hard in the cooter.

Amadeus 48 said...

Well, as Governor Jim Thompson used to say, let’s have both. I think Melania sued the Daily Mail and the Mail Online in both New York and the UK. An article in The Guardian from April 12, 2017 says that the amount paid by the newspapers was among the highest ever to go through the UK courts. It says the settlement covered cases brought in both the US and UK.
Whew! I am glad we got that settled!
I suppose they did the same thing in the Telegraph suit. Will they sue Burleigh and the publisher of her book? It looks like Burleigh recycled some of the stuff the Daily Mail had published. Shame on the Telegraph for falling for it.
Fake news is fake news.

Amadeus 48 said...

Again I note that the Telegraph folded fast.

Martin said...

Wow, do we need to get Sullivan overturned!!!

MD Greene said...

Now do Mamie Eisenhower, Edith Wilson and Rachel Jackson.